7,553 karma · joined October 22, 2011
I love people, including you.
I play original bluegrass and traditional music - sometimes along with tech talks and live coding - at technology conferences.
My professional focus (and thus, the lyrical and other content I create) is mostly on cryptography, distributed systems, wikis and anarchic collaboration, home automation and off-grid life, gaming, homeschooling, and free range parenting.
I contribute to several open source projects.
On a hobby-but-with-some-rigor level, I sometimes study urban planning, epidemiology, quantum mechanics (and/or ways in which QFT may be the wrong way to explain the standard model), aviation / ATC, neurochemistry, amateur radio, culinary arts, and hymnology. I also enjoy learning new instruments (currently working on mandolin).
Some of you have hung out on my school bus - I love having guests. :-)
My basic belief: Peace and justice in the world are not only conceptually attainable, but inevitable by dint of the evolution of the internet. I pray for compassion and understanding in these transitional times.
My new record, Vowel Sounds: https://justinholmes.com/music/vowel-sounds/
justinholmes.com
It's the corporate equivalent of lacking boundaries and failing to maintain emotional maturity.
Everybody has to say 'no' sometimes in order to be awesome and capable. Corporations need to say 'no' to governments far more often than they do.
We all have fears that saying 'no' to a narcissist will lead to retaliation; having boundaries despite that fear is what keeps us healthy.
What I'd really like is an autocomplete (or pseudo code to language-of-choice) interface, with my agent continually adding the interactions to its context, so that I can chat with it about high-level project goals as the code matures.
And Sierra is a very sharp and kind human being from what I can tell. We've had the good fortune to hang out a few times at IBMA and once in Tennessee. She has always been very fun and curious and easygoing with my son, and she radiates a continually inspired view of the future of the music "industry".
I don't know her super well, but she runs in my circles of friends who are interested in a radical rethinking (for many of us, an abolitionist view) of IP. I have no idea her views in particular, but it feels notable to see the kinds of folks coming up through that scene.
An occasional co-writer of hers, Melody Walker, also seems to be a thought-leader on questioning industry (and also societal) norms. I strongly suggest her content (and if you're not familiar, their beautiful co-written ballad, American Dreaming).
I don't recall if I've spoken to Sierra about IPFS - I think I actually have, when describing the release process for my second record - but it's an interesting synchrony to have Dolly leave us (and for many of us, to instinctually turn to Sierra for inspiration) and for IPFS lose its primary maintaining org in the same day.
It's obvious that the long-term future of traditional music is as the lifeblood of peer-to-peer topologies and communities.
Here's Sierra summoning the energy of Dolly last Sept:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeV6-hTLe6U
I'm sure she'll do a generationally-relevant tribute in the next week or two, as will Billy Strings.
(Reminder: Both Billy and Sierra have released their entire catalog DRM-free: https://pickipedia.xyz/wiki/DRM-free)
https://github.com/nucypher/constantSorrow/blob/master/tests...
Maybe I need to put my music on Arweave.
See: https://pickipedia.xyz/wiki/Cryptograss:Delivery-kid
If IPFS is starting to wane, does anyone else have a suggestion of a replacement about which I might start to educate my fans?
I still think it's pretty obvious that on sufficiently long time-scales that some variant of NFTs will be the winner for event tickets.
But the question is: just because some perpetrators don't deserve second chances, why does that mean that McDonalds and Raytheon get to be the beneficiary of their free labor?
And more importantly: with a huge economic incentive to enslave ("imprison"... eye roll) these people, can we ever actually have a system that properly selects people who actually need to be removed from society?
If prisons are actually a viable mechanism for public safety, let's amend the 13th amendment to prohibit all slavery, instead of allowing it to exist in prisons, and then we'll get a clearer picture.
My presumption is that, as nation-states are deprecated, coordination between them will have to take the shape of sufficiently decentralized technology that the "networks have the ability to vet and ignore" portion becomes a local and voluntary process.
And - probably an area where reasonable people disagree - it's the (real or perceived) authority that makes it possible to "be used for evil"; if there is no badge and gun, and each message (broadly considered) is to be considered on its own merits (both for its truth and its persuasiveness), then I think that corporate propaganda just lands in the 'ignore' (or even 'spam') pile.
This whole charade in the USA of dressing up slavery (without even a single day of interruption on January 31, 1865) as "correction" is absurd. It's obviously a way to continue an economy that relies on a supply of involuntary labor, and has nothing whatsoever to do with public safety.
There are plenty of ways to implement restorative justice which are superior to forcing convicts to make starbucks uniforms (start here if you've never delved into this, but there are great books on the topic which you can find from here: https://harvardpolitics.com/restorative-justice-abolition/).
There is an obvious solution that achieves all of these, that, on 1000 year timescales, seems inevitable: deprecation of the nation-state.
The internet solves every problem the nation-state purports to. For example, the very real problem of coordination, eloquently and convincingly outlined in the federalist papers (tldr: we need a central republic structure because it's too difficult to coordinate disparate statehouses via horseback with every little intrastate decision) is solved by dint of instant communication and long-term data retention. So it is with every other claim in favor of these huge legacy state structures.
In this age, there is no longer any state needs to be larger than say, 1500 square km - about the size of a large county. This way, people can flee on foot to an adjacent state if needed, and no state can possibly control enough infrastructure to force Vodaphone to send such nauseating propaganda.
We need the elder statesmen in the room to read the writing on the wall and begin this process.
Is this really better though? First-party community maintenance is more direct, cheaper, and doesn't rely on fragile central authorities (granted, it _does_ rely on a difficult pattern of community discussion and collaboration to satisfy tribal consensus, etc).
I'm broadly OK with cameras being in public, but I have much more trust in direct action than I do in elected "officials".
On medium time-scales, it seems to me that a great solution will be to have community-maintained cameras kinda all over the commons, but such that the camera eye can be accessed publicly (ie, removing the information asymmetry which gives the undesirable actors (police, etc) greater view than the actual community participants).
A year when police were relatively rare, and quite new in the western legal experience, having only emerged from slave patrols in the United States and from the founding of the 1829 Scotland Yard in the United Kingdom. This is a year with living memory of a time when the state did not employ people to do what was ostensibly the civic responsibility of every person to quell crime and protect others.
Flock cameras... I mean, look: our society, without any central organization at all, has the capacity to record nearly every crime that occurs, just by dint of our camera phones and private surveillance systems. So Flock really just gives the police more information, creating a an asymmetry with the rest of society.
Given that we can already record all that we need to, and call for help from each other at a moment's notice, what good can police do for the next few centuries? And what possible hope is there that it will outweigh the bad?
I have the Gasland IH77BFH. If someone has made a hack to modify this by adding physical dials, I'd be tickled.
Everything that we want to do can be done through ordinary collaboration with no need for the state. The special services which the state provides (violence and threats of violence, imperialism, inhibition of movement of people and goods across imaginary lines, etc) are the kinds of things that are really only interesting to the kinds of people who are already spending their money on lobbying.
Why do you care about Disney's emotional outbursts in the first place though?
> The problem is that it is now explicitly reserved for the rich.
That's not new - it has always served entrenched interests at the cost of actual artists and entertainers. John Perry Barlow laid this out with great clarity throughout his time with The Grateful Dead, perhaps best here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLbqgG6o1n8
That's like, elite literary territory though. Let's stick to the discussion on books.
You can accept it or not. But it's going to be a lot easier if you do.
But I think they got this particular political decision wrong, both ethically and factually. Looking at what seems to have passed for "deliberation", it's hard not to walk away with a very poor impression of codeberg (or at least, their process for deciding on such bans).
The crux of the argument appears to have been that blockchains are environmentally destructive - obviously a critique aimed at Proof-of-Work blockchains. Then, many commenters pointed out that the environmental argument doesn't apply to proof-of-stake projects in the same way.
The responses then become just inane and immature. For example, "The dominant cryptocurrency is still Bitcoin and they have no plans to move to Proof-of-stake." - I can't fathom how this statement has any bearing on the impact of other proof-of-stake projects using codeberg as their VCS host.
Through these issue threads leading up to the vote, the arguments in favor of continuing to host blockchain projects are far more reasonable and sober and better informed than the detractors.
If anything, this discussion seems to reinforce the (and my) view that, on long time scales, blockchains are likely to be an elegant solution to humanity's problems of economic inequality and inefficiency.
FWIW, this is not an unreasonable ask either.
No it's not. We'd _much_ rather you steal our music if it means we are part of a free, permissionless, seeking-to-be-comprehensive library of the traditions of humankind.
We don't give a fuck about whether you get our music according to the prescribed notions of some particular state or corporation.
I'm a bluegrasser, so maybe my lens is pretty shifted (given that our tradition is one of passing on copyright-unencumbered tunes from time immemorial). But this view is very widespead - essentially universal - in bluegrass. There's a reason that every IBMA and bluegrass grammy has gone to a drm-free record the past bunch of years.
I think a darker possibility also looms: that there is ongoing astroturfing across the internet in defense of what turned out to be ludicrous policies.
In real life, there seem to be so few people who stand by lockdowns in the face of all the data that's now available. Vanishingly few serious epidemiologists continue to contend that lockdowns were helpful. All five of the big five medical schools have published multiple papers concluding that lockdowns were more harmful than helpful.
So what, are these people just chronically online and uninformed? I mean, we're on HN, where there's typically a more informed and data-driven conversation. What makes this topic different?
Here's a talk from the Collateral Global conference (there are several other talks that address the intersection of labor, lockdowns, and profit motives): https://collateralglobal.org/article/panel-2-the-impact-of-c...
Heh well of course I don't deny that there's a dramatic decrease in pleasure. But I don't think that's on the same order as the mortality / morbidity that comes from a mishandled pandemic.
> If only by “measurable” you set a bar to mean that we would require a parallel universe where no lockdowns were in place, especially in the cold-weather, low sunlight climates.
Not at all - there are plenty enough data to draw solid conclusions, as many reputable scientists have. And while it's true that many places in the world that eschewed lockdowns were tropical and have less developed economies, there was also a wide variety of policies in place in temperate regions, from the many parts of the USA which closed schools for a year, to the many more moderate policies in Europe, to Sweden, which had no lockdown at all.
I believe the data available are sufficient to draw a conclusion, and I think it's beyond dispute that, if you do find the data to be sufficient, the only plausible conclusion is that lockdowns were associated with increased incidence of adverse outcomes, with no measurable benefit.
Not only did lockdowns not prevent spread of the virus, but they increased spread between generations within households, which in turn was a direct cause of morbidity and mortality.
I understand if the argument is about civic duty or something, but on the actual data, I just don't think there's remaining room for reasonable dispute. It's clear.